Chapter XII (1)

1597-1644.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE POOR LAW AS A WHOLE.

1. Importance of the period 1597 to 1644.
(_a_) Because it was the period when the relief of the impotent poor
became established.
(_b_) Because it is the only period in which many efforts were made to
set the unemployed to work.

Administration of the Poor Law as a whole.

2. Negligent administration of the Poor Law in the North and extreme
West.
3. The administration of the Poor Law in the rest of England varied
with the action of the Privy Council.
4. Action of the Privy Council and administration between 1597 and
1605.
5. Action of the Privy Council and administration between 1605 and
1629.
6. Action of the Privy Council and administration between 1629 and
1644.
(_a_) State of affairs in 1631.
(_b_) Improvement effected in 1631 and 1632.
(_c_) Improvement maintained between 1631 and 1640.

Provision of Work for the Unemployed.

7. The improvement effected in 1631 especially concerned the
unemployed.
8. The detailed report from Bassetlaw.
9. Provision of work: (_a_) in the North and extreme West, (_b_)
in the towns, (_c_) in the Western counties, (_d_) in the Eastern
counties.
10. Summary.

[Sidenote: 1. Importance of the period 1597-1644.]

We have already examined both the machinery which existed for the execution of the poor law and the different methods which were used for relieving the impotent, for training the young and for [Sidenote: 1. (_a_) Because it was the period when the relief of the impotent poor became established.]

providing work for the unemployed. We have now to consider the administration as a whole; to find out when and where the machinery was put in motion and how far these methods were generally employed. The history of poor relief in the sixteenth century has already shown us that it was far more easy to pass a Poor Law than to procure a good system of administration. There were many poor laws before those of 1597 and 1601 but they were not well administered: they were never so generally or so effectively enforced as to become part of the practice as well as of the law of the country.

If the last Elizabethan poor law had been no more successful than these earlier statutes the whole system of compulsory poor relief would probably have collapsed during the Civil War. The fact that the part of the poor law relating to children and the destitute survived that war, and has ever since formed part of our social organisation may be attributed therefore to the improved administration of the earlier Stuarts. The administrators of this period are thus responsible for the continued practice of any legal system of relief at all.

[Sidenote: 1. (_b_) The period 1597 to 1644 is also the only period in which many efforts were made to set the unemployed to work.]

But the history of administration during this period is important for a second reason. The part of the poor law relating to the impotent poor and children has been enforced ever since the reign of Charles I., but the clauses relating to the unemployed were very little executed after the Civil War. In 1662 the destitute were relieved, but the unemployed were no longer set to work. In this respect therefore the poor law administration of the reigns of the earlier Stuarts is unique. It is interesting therefore to examine the methods then employed a little more closely and see if the instances of the provision of work which we have already considered are isolated cases of this kind of relief or if they are examples of a general system. If the unemployed were at all generally set to work, then this period is important, not only because the legal relief of the destitute then became the practice of the country, but because we then had more poor relief than we have ever had before or since. For a short time a limited kind of socialism was to some extent established.

We will therefore now try to find out how the events of the period throw light on these two points; (1) when and how was the system of poor relief thoroughly established, and (2) how far was that part of it which concerned the employment of the poor ever an important part of the social organisation of the country.

The two parts of our inquiry are much intermingled, and it is impossible to separate them entirely. But in the first part we will consider the system of poor relief as a whole including the finding of work for the unemployed when it is closely associated with the other portions of the system, and we will afterwards examine more in detail a few points which especially concern the provision of work.

[Sidenote: 2. The administration of the law in the North and extreme West was negligent.]

With regard to the relief of the poor as a whole, it seems clear that the law was not equally well administered at all places or in all times. The places in which the administration of the law was least satisfactory were those farthest from the seat of government. They are indicated in some cases by the absence of justices' reports; in others by the character of the reports, or by the distinct statement of the statute of 1662. From Northumberland and Cumberland and some of the counties of Wales we have no justices' reports on the poor law, and we have little evidence from other sources as to any effective enforcement of the law. From Westmoreland and Lancashire we have very few reports until 1637 and 1638, and these seem to indicate that the system of poor relief was then only recently introduced[574]. From Wiltshire, Devonshire and Cornwall we have a few reports, but they indicate a comparatively careless administration. There are few or no cases of setting the poor to work, and in Wiltshire it was difficult to find masters for the apprentices. But except in Northumberland and Cumberland some kind of legal poor relief was administered in all these counties, although it seems to have been less well administered than in other parts of the country. The statute of 1662 tells us that at the time of its enactment parts of Wales, the counties forming the Bishopric of Durham and the county of Yorkshire derived little benefit from the statute of Elizabeth[575], and except Yorkshire, these counties are precisely those from which we have few or no reports.

[574] See _supra_, p. 214.

[575] 14 Chas. II., c. 12.

But in the South-east and Midland parts of England and the rest of the Western shires the case was different. During some part of our period the system seems to have been on the whole fairly well organised.

[Sidenote: 3. The administration of the Poor Law in the rest of England depended upon the action of the Privy Council.]

But this was not equally the case at all times. It was the case only when the justices were vigilant, and they seem to have been made vigilant mainly by the frequent letters and orders of the Privy Council.

It is this action of the Privy Council that seems to make the administration of this period different from that of the sixteenth century, though it was the existence of the justices that caused this action to be so effectual. But the letters and orders of the Privy Council were not always equally frequent even during the period from 1597 to 1644.

We have already seen that in 1597 a letter ordering the good execution of the new poor law was sent to all the justices of England and Wales. We have also seen that between 1597 and 1629 this kind of action was exceptional. The Council interfered in particular cases, and in times of scarcity commanded general measures of relief, but before 1629 it did not steadily enforce the administration of general measures with regard to the relief of the poor in ordinary times. But from 1629 to 1640 we find that the matter is altogether different; a commission is appointed, a new organisation is introduced by the Book of Orders of 1630/1, and for nine years the pressure of the Council on the justices is constant and continuous. We have now to see if the improvement in the general administration of the poor law in all parts of the country corresponded to the periods when the Privy Council was vigorous. We will consider first the period between 1597 and 1605, secondly that from 1605 to 1629, and lastly the years from 1629 to 1640. We shall find that there are grounds for believing that the administration of the system of poor relief was best when most pressure was exercised and was lax when pressure was withdrawn. The main improvement therefore in the organisation of the system took place between 1629 and 1640, that is under the personal government of Charles I.

[Sidenote: 4. Action of Privy Council and administration between 1597 and 1605.]

The directions of the Privy Council in 1597 seem to have had an immediate effect both as regards measures of relief and measures of repression.

As regards the repressive measures and the efficacy of Houses of Correction the opinion of Lord Coke is decisive. He had many opportunities of knowledge and had no reason for not being impartial. Speaking of the employment and correction of vagrants he says, "And this excellent work is without question feasible. For, upon the making of the statute of 39 Eliz. and a good space after whilest Justices of the Peace and other officers were diligent and industrious there was not a rogue to be seen in any part of England, but when Justices and other Officers became tepidi or trepidi Rogues etc. swarmed again." Speaking of gaols and Houses of Correction he tells us, "Few or none are committed to the common gaol amongst so many malefactors but they come out worse then they went in. And few are committed to the House of Correction or Working-House, but they come out better[576]." For a little time therefore vagrants were repressed, and the discipline and relief afforded in Houses of Correction were very efficacious.

[576] Coke's _Institutes_ II., p. 729.

There was also an improvement with regard to the administration of relief to the more deserving classes of the poor. We have already seen that special energy was displayed in the West Riding of Yorkshire at this time, and that there the justices found it very difficult to administer the law, but did execute it to a considerable extent. In Devonshire also the justices received a letter from the Lord Lieutenant, urging them to take especial care for the relief of those in want, and they too began to take measures for carrying out the law. They revoked the licenses granted for beggars, put in order the Houses of Correction and authorised a system of organised billeting on the rich. The poor were to be relieved with two meals a day, one to every household or two or more according to the ability of the householder. If there was any default the justices might assess any sum up to eighteenpence weekly "for every pole[577]." Moreover the justices were to raise stocks for setting the poor to work. All this points to a great increase in vigilance after the Order in Council of 1597 and it also points to the fact that the administration was recent. A general system of billeting was seldom adopted when the legal relief of the poor had been long put in practice. Moreover Devonshire and Yorkshire in later times were backward in administering the law, so that the improvement was probably at least as great in other counties.

[577] Hamilton's _Quarter Sessions from Queen Eliz. to Queen Anne_, p. 16.

We should also derive a favourable opinion as to the good execution of the law at that time from the Duke of Stettin's account of his journey through England in 1602. Speaking of the Royal Exchange he states, "It is a pleasure to go about there, for one is not molested or accosted by beggars, who are elsewhere so frequently met with in places of this kind. For in all England they do not suffer any beggars except they be few in number and outside the gates.

"Every parish cares for its own poor, strangers are brought to the hospital, but those that belong to the kingdom or have come from distant places are sent from one parish to the other, their wants being cared for until at last they reach their home[578]." The Duke of Stettin judges favourably most things that he sees in England but still his account could not have been written unless beggars had been out of sight in the parts visited by him and unless the poor had seemed to be relieved in England more effectually than in his own country.

[578] Translation from the "Diary of the Duke of Stettin's Journey," pp. 12 and 13, _Trans. of Royal Hist. Soc._

After 1597 therefore the execution of the law appears to have been more vigorous and the improvement is likely to have been connected with the action taken by the Privy Council in that year.

[Sidenote: 5. Action of the Privy Council and administration between 1605 and 1629.]

We will now see how the administration of poor relief was carried out between 1605 and 1629. We know that during these years the Privy Council did not make continuous efforts on behalf of the deserving poor. A commission however was contemplated in January 1619/20, and the special measures in connection with the years of scarcity of 1621 to 1623 were much more organised than in former years, and may have suggested an improved administration of the law about that time. We therefore find that on the whole the law appears to have been badly executed but that from 1621 to 1623 some improvement took place.

We will first see what are the grounds for thinking the law was badly executed between 1605 and 1629.

Lord Coke himself tells us "rogues soon swarmed again" and his opinion is confirmed by the evidence of a tract of this time called "Stanleyes Remedy or the VVay how to reform wandring Beggers, Theeves, high-way Robbers and Pickpockets."

This pamphlet was not published until 1646 but seems to have been composed about the year 1606[579]. The writer is a converted highwayman who is anxious for the reformation of his fellow-sinners. He states "that Beggerie and Theeverie did never more abound," and he complains that the branding and whipping parts of the statutes are put in execution long before any place is provided where the poor could have work. He thought that this was most unfair to the vagrants for many of them would work if they could and go voluntarily to workhouses if they were in existence. He therefore urges the establishment of places where men could have work in all the larger parishes of the kingdom[580].

[579] The pamphlet is addressed to King James I. and the statute for branding rogues is called the "new statute": this probably refers to the 1 Jac. I. c. 7, 1603-4. No mention is made of the 7 Jac. I. c. 4, which commanded the establishment of Houses of Correction, and was passed in 1609-10. The pamphlet therefore was written in the reign of James I., probably soon after 1604 and before 1610.

[580] Stanleyes, _Remedy_, p. 8.

Another pamphlet complaining of the bad execution of the law was entitled "Greevous Grones for the Poore" and was published in 1622. The writer of this states that "though the number of the Poore do dailie increase all things worketh for the worst in their behalfe. For there hath beene no collection for them, no not these seven yeares in many parishes of this land especiallie in countrie townes; but many of those parishes turneth forth their Poore, yea and their lustie labourers that will not worke or for any misdemeenor want worke, to begge, filtch, and steale, for their maintenance so that the country is pittifully pestered with them[581]."

[581] Eden, _State of the Poor_, I. p. 155.

Another document of 1624 gives precisely the same information. This is a letter from a Mr Williamson to Sir Julius Caesar, the Master of the Rolls, who was one of the most charitably disposed gentlemen of the time. The writer thinks the neglect of the overseers to apprentice children is the true cause of vagrancy. He tells us that the seventeenth century vagrant like the modern tramp was very seldom a man who knew a trade[582]. The existence of these untrained men was due to the fault of the administrators of the Poor Law. For these "intollerable offences haue originally growen from the Ou(er)seers of the poore who heretofore and att this day haue and doe so ou(er)see as though they did not see at all[583]."

[582] "Among fortie beggers you shall not find one man of trade." Add. MSS., No. 12496, f. 238. A favourite question of the present Lord Chief Justice of England before he sentences a prisoner is, "Has he ever been engaged in any regular work or had any definite employment?"

[583] Add. MSS., Brit. Mus., No. 12496, f. 238. This writer differs from most of the time in expressing disapproval of Bridewells. He is an advocate for prevention rather than cure, for apprenticing the child rather than for correcting the vagrant.

These writings would therefore lead us to believe that justices soon grew careless; the poor were not relieved and in many places there was very little execution of the law at all. All these statements are made by writers who are vigorously supporting only one side of the case but the official evidence of the period confirms their view of the matter. The reasons given for the appointment of the commission suggested in 1619/20 show that the unofficial writers had not exaggerated the existing neglect in the administration of the poor laws. Good laws have been made but they are not executed because the justices are negligent and the judges of Assize have not time to fully investigate the matter. The laws in consequence "are in many partes of our Realme laid aside or little regarded as lawes not in force or of small consequence, whereas in some other counties and partes of this kingdome in w^{ch} by the diligence and industrye of sume justices of the peace and other magistrates the said lawes haue bine dulye putt in execucon there hath evidentlye appeared much good and benefitt to haue redowned to the Comon welth by the same[584]." At this time therefore there was a real likelihood that the poor law would become obsolete.

[584] Add. MSS., No. 12504, 14th Jan., 17 Jac. I.

However the season of scarcity in 1622-3 was accompanied by a crisis in the cloth trade and the Privy Council was active in enforcing measures of relief. A great improvement was consequently then effected in the execution of temporary measures of corn relief, and some reports indicate that this was accompanied by a better administration of the ordinary poor law also.

Thus from Burnham in Buckinghamshire the justices report, "We have alsoe looked into and have caused the poore to bee well provided for in every parrish within this diuision both by stocks to sett them on worke as alsoe by weekely contributions[585]." From several of the hundreds of Suffolk there are similar reports. Thus in every "towne" of Lackford and Exning the rates had been augmented and the "poorer sorte of people within the seurall townes and places are ordered to be sett on worke[586]." From other districts in both East and West we have like accounts[587].

[585] _Dom. State Papers_, James I., Vol. 143, 24.

[586] _Ib._, Vol. 142, 14, I.

[587] _Ib._, Vol. 142, 14, II.

"Wee have by our indevours taken order that the aged and ympotent poore and maymed soldiers be sufficientlie relieved; Those of able and sturdie bodies are provided of work." Babergh and Cosford, Suffolk; also in Williton, Freemanors and Carhampton, Somerset: the report is dated Mar. 20th. _Cal. of State Papers_, under May 8th, 1623.

Between the years 1605 and 1629 therefore the administration of poor relief was on the whole negligent and in many districts the poor law was already considered to be of little importance. The government was however still anxious to secure its enforcement and the measures taken to relieve distress in 1622-3 effected an improvement in a few districts.

[Sidenote: 6. Action of the Privy Council and administration between 1629 and 1644.]

But from 1629 to 1644 we have a different state of things. We know already that during this period the action of the Privy Council was continuous and constant, and it is in this period therefore that we shall be able to see how far it was effective. The justices' reports, to which we have already often referred are the main sources of our information.

We will endeavour to see how far the evidence of the early part of the period confirms the view we have already formed as to the administration of the law at the beginning of the time, and we will secondly try to estimate the evidence as to improvement during this period.

[Sidenote: 6. _a._ State of affairs in 1631.]

The condition of affairs before 1631 is indicated by the preamble to the commission of Jan. 1631/2 and by some of the earlier reports of 1631. The reasons given for the appointment of the commission of 1631/2 are almost exactly the same as those given in the draft of 1619/20. The justices are said as before to be negligent so that the laws were almost obsolete in some parts of the country, and this alone shows that there had been little permanent improvement since 1620. The preamble also refers to an earlier time "vpon the present making of the said lawes," when they were duly executed and thus confirms the evidence as to the good execution of the laws after 1597[588].

[588] Add. MSS., Brit. Mus., 12496, f. 251. "Justices of Peace, Magistrates, Officers and Ministers are now of late in most parts of this our Kingdome growne secure in their said negligence, and the said politique and necessarie Lawes and Statutes laid aside or little regarded as Lawes of small use and consequence."

The justices' reports of 1631 give us more detailed information of the same kind. One of these was sent from three of the hundreds of Hampshire, Fawley, Bountisborough and Mainsborough. The justices say that they sent an abstract of the act to the officials concerned and ordered constables, tithingmen, and overseers to bring presentments to them. But they "for the most parte" replied, "that they haue noe poore that wanted worke or releife, that they had noe rogues but suche as were punished." The justices thought this state of things too good to be true; they made further enquiries and found that the highways were out of repair, that no monthly meetings had been held by the overseers and that there were no stocks for setting the poor to work. They also heard that some of the poor were "in noe small want" but did not complain because of ignorance or fear. They hoped to effect improvement by exacting fines for negligence, by publishing the particulars of their monthly meetings, and by sending a series of definite questions to the overseers as to the names of the poor relieved or set to work and of the children over ten years of age who were not bound apprentice[589]. In this way they tried to obtain detailed statements so that there could be no evasion of the law. There is a later report from Fawley concerning corn and apprentices, and the part of the law relating to apprentices was certainly then carried out[590].

[589] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 188, 85. See Appendix XII.

[590] _Ib._, 250, 11, I. The justices had met several times in accordance with directions from the judges at the last assizes: they had bound apprentice twenty poor children.

But there are other districts in which the justices do not tell us of negligent officials, but rather seem proud of their vigour and yet seem to imply that it was only recently the law had come into force. This is particularly the case in Radnorshire and Cheshire. In two divisions of Radnor the justices say they have appointed overseers, and have given particular directions as to the provision of stocks and return of the names of the poor relieved[591]. The reports suggest that the justices were now energetic, but that little had been done before; the mention of the appointment of overseers is unaccompanied by the word new or by any statement as to the rendering of the accounts of the old overseers, so that it is possible that these were the first overseers appointed in that district.

[591] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 194, 18, II. and III.

In two of the divisions of Cheshire the same state of things is implied more definitely. The justices say that they have ordered the collection of a stock for the setting the poor to work and for the relief of the impotent, but they find the people poor and averse to paying money for any purpose of the kind. They fear some time will elapse before these orders can be properly executed. At present these divisions have not got a House of Correction, and the justices wish to have one in the Castle in order that they may be able to subdue the people to subjection[592]. These reports seem to reveal a very primitive state of things, and recall the difficulties in the West Riding of Yorkshire in 1597, when poor relief seems to have been first enforced there, and the people greatly objected to the imposition of rates.

[592] _Dom. State Papers_, Vol. 195, 21 and 31. June, 1631.

Other reports show that the Book of Orders strengthened the hands of reformers; thus in the town of Wells, charities had been negligently administered, but after the issue of the orders the Recorder was able to procure information formerly withheld, and hoped to effect farther improvement by obtaining a commission of charitable uses[593].

[593] _Ib._, Vol. 194, 19. Wells, Somerset.

It is thus fairly clear that before 1631 the law had not been well administered. We will now examine the evidence as to the improvement between 1631 and 1640.

[Sidenote: 6. _b._ Improvement effected in 1631 and 1632.]

The greater number of the reports of 1631 and 1632 point to some execution of the law before 1631 and suggest improvement rather than entire innovation. The justices generally state they have "raised rates" or have bound many more children apprentices or that stocks had been provided in the parishes where there were none before. Two reports enable us to trace the process of improvement in detail, and seem to throw considerable light on the general statements of other documents of the kind. They do not however present so favourable a view as to the execution of the law as most of the other returns. These reports relate to the district of Braughing in Hertfordshire. The overseers of thirteen places in the half hundred of Braughing made returns to the justices at six successive monthly meetings held in accordance with the provisions of the Book of Orders, between Feb. 7th and June 27, 1631. Abstracts of these returns were sent in by the justices in two documents, one of which was forwarded in April and the other in July 1631[594]. We can thus see exactly when the improvement was effected. At the first meeting four parishes provided corn at reduced rates for the poor. The Book of Orders relating to scarcity had been issued since September, and we should expect some improvement would already have been made. Six sets of overseers had already placed some children apprentices, but not very many, and only two of the largest places had stocks for setting the poor to work. At the last meeting on June 27th relief was much more extensively administered. Two other places provided corn at reduced rates: the six parishes which formerly had placed a few apprentices now bound many more, while five other townships also provided for the children in this manner. A much better provision for the employment of the poor was also made. In five places instead of two there were now stocks for this purpose and most of the others give reasons for the want of one. In three cases we are told there is plenty of employment, at Eastwick the inhabitants set the poor to work, and at Westmill the general statement only is made that the poor are relieved according to their necessities. Three places do not provide stocks or give any reason for not doing so. We can also see that these funds might often have disappeared, for the ten pounds stock at Hunsdon had "decayed" to only five pounds at the end of the period. In the district of Braughing therefore the law was executed in the larger places before 1630 but negligently even there. Immediately however after the receipt of the Book of Orders the justices set themselves to work, held the monthly meetings, stimulated the overseers, and in five months succeeded in effecting a very considerable improvement.

[594] See Appendix XII.

This was only typical of what was going on all over the country. It is of course impossible to quote all the reports of the period; it is only possible to give particular cases, and to state that they are not isolated instances, but are typical of the documents of that time. Thus in April, 1631, we hear that meetings had been rapidly held and that they had been partially successful, but that the justices were still in the midst of their activity; they had done a good deal to make matters better and were still doing more. For example in the account sent from the New Forest the justices write "the rates for the poore where neede most requireth wee haue caused to be rised for reliefe of the poore people w^{th}in that part, and haue given strict order to the ouerseers for providing necessary releife for such as are ympotent and such as are able to sett them to worke, and haue alreadie placed many poore children apprentizes and doe proceede in placinge of more[595]."

[595] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 188, 45.

In the returns sent later in the year the organisation appears to be more settled and we hear that not only the rates are raised but that they have had a good effect. Thus in Monslow in Shropshire the justices state "and as for the late booke of orders for the reliefe of the poore and the punishing of rogues and vagabonds wee have had severalle monthlye meetings in the said hundred and wee have long since worked such effect thereby as they have not any rogues or vagabonds appeared amongst vs or walked abroade as wee can heare of since our first meetings, and the impotent poore are relieved in such sort by their parishoners as wee have noe complaints and there are stocks in all parishes more or lesse as the charge of the parishes require to set the able poore on worke[596]." Not all the reports are as favourable as this, but on the whole they indicate that improved order followed the execution of the Book of Orders. It thus is clear that the Orders of 1631 had a very considerable immediate effect both in bringing the law into operation in places where it had been almost or altogether neglected and still more in improving the administration in those districts in which the system was already to some extent administered though not yet effectually.

[596] _Ib._, Vol. 194, 17, V.

[Sidenote: 6. _c._ Improvement maintained between 1631 and 1640.]

We have now to see whether this improved administration was maintained. The reports are certainly less frequent after 1631 but those that remain shew that the efficiency is preserved and there is much to indicate a farther improvement.

We will first examine a few documents which seem to indicate that the area of administration was extending into backward districts, we will then investigate a few cases in which we have reports both in 1631 and in 1638 or 1639, and we will lastly consider a special department of the poor law system, namely the placing of apprentices.

We have already noted the fact that in the earlier years of the period there were few reports from Westmoreland and Lancashire.

But in 1638 there are a series of documents from Westmoreland[597] and several reports from Lancashire. In 1638 some of the Lancashire parishes adopted the system of billeting the poor in need of relief on the richer inhabitants. This plan does not seem to have long continued as an exclusive system of relief, and the facts that it was still employed and that these are the earliest reports from Westmoreland seem to indicate that a compulsory system of poor relief had only lately been established in the northern counties. Moreover in 1637 we are told that at the meeting of the justices in Rochdale in Sept. 1637, the churchwardens of Middleton confessed that they had never before levied a tax for the relief of the poor there; they now however proceeded to levy one, and in March in the following year the tax provided the necessary relief[598]. All this seems to show that the area of the administration of the poor law was extending and that in 1638 there was little danger of the system of poor relief becoming obsolete but that it was obtaining a firmer hold over the country.

[597] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 388, 7. April 18th, 1638.

[598] _Ib._, Vol. 385, 15. The want of a poor rate seems to be reported as an unusual fact, and at Rochdale at the same time the poor rates amounted to £340, a hundred and twenty impotent people were relieved, and a hundred poor families assisted.

We will now examine a few of the cases in which we have reports from the same district both in 1631 and 1638 or 1639. We have already noted the detailed returns from Braughing. It happens that one of the latest documents of the series returned in August 1639 comes from the hundreds of Hertford and Braughing. The justices tell us that our "ympotent poore are weekelie releiued by a certein pencon and the rates increased as necessitie requires. And those of able bodies are plentifullie stored with work for the maynteynance of their families"; five apprentices had also lately been bound[599]. From this we see that the improved administration there lasted throughout the period.

[599] _Dom. State Papers_, Chas. I., Vol. 427, 4. Aug. 1st, 1639.

We have several other places from which we have similar reports. Skenfreth, one of the hundreds of Monmouth, often sent accounts of the proceedings of the justices. One belongs to May, 1631. The justices state some of the things they did both before the Commission and afterwards. Before the Commission they provided weekly stipends for all the aged and impotent people, "sithence the said commission" they "have taken order that the same stipends shalbe contineually paied soe that none of any such poore people have made any complaint unto us for any mainetenance." Both before and after the commission they had punished rogues and since they had also placed apprentices and suppressed alehouses. Moreover the highways had been last year in better condition than for twenty years before[600].

[600] _Ib._, Vol. 192, 51. May 26, 1631.

Thus the immediate improvement effected by the commission was that the pensions were paid as well as ordered, apprentices were bound and alehouses suppressed.

In May, 1637, we have a report from the same district together with the hundreds of Ragland and Trellech. At that time apprentices were bound, rogues punished and efforts made to secure the observance of fasting days. The justices have also "taken course for provision of stock to sett the poore on worke," and have "caused to be sufficiently relieved all the aged lame and ympotent people[601]." Thus if these documents are to be believed the improvement effected in 1631 was maintained and even increased in this hundred of Skenfreth.

[601] _Ib._, Vol. 355, 63. See also Vol. 293, No. 23.

There are many other cases in which reports are sent in several times from the same place and all show that the improvement made in 1631 was continued in 1637, 1638 or 1639[602].

[602] From Whittlesford, Chilford and Radfield, Cambridgeshire, April 1631, Vol. 189, 75, the justices report there are twenty-five "townes," and state "That the impotent poore in every towne are releeved. That wee have put out in these three hundreds betweene six and seaven score apprentyces. That the able poore are provyded for or sett to worke."

From the same three hundreds. July 1638. "We are certifyed by the ouerseers for the poore that the impotent poore are relieved and the other poore are provided of worke." Do. Vol. 395, 114.

From Freebridge Lynn, Freebridge Marshland, and Clackclose, Norfolk, the justices, in 1631, report that the impotent were relieved, and children were bound apprentice. Vol. 195, 47.

In July 1638, we hear from the same district, "And more particularly wee haue taken especiall care that the statute of the 43^{th} yere of Quene Elizabeth shold be exactlie obserued in raysing of stocks of materialls for setting the poore of able bodyes to worke and raising competent somes of monye for the releife of the poore and impotent and putting forth poore children to be apprentices." Vol. 395, 32.

See also Edwinstree and Odsey, 189, 13, and 426, 73, etc.

We will now examine a few of the reports which relate especially to the placing of apprentices. Before May 1635 the Privy Council or the commissioners seem to have urged the justices to see especially that this part of the law was carried out, and to have asked them to report the names of the apprentices and those of their masters[603]. The reports sent in 1634 and 1635 therefore relate especially to the placing of apprentices and the monthly meetings of the justices.

[603] Vol. 289, 14.

Reports from twenty-one places were sent in between July 17th and July 31st, 1634. In almost every case the justices expressly state that they hold monthly meetings and bind poor children apprentice[604]. In the year 1635 the statements are more detailed. Between May 20th and May 30th replies were sent from ten places in eight of which the names of both apprentices and masters were given[605]. Sometimes these were numerous; thus at Blandford in Dorset one hundred and nineteen apprentices were bound in the course of two years[606]; in one district of Somerset the names of one hundred and sixty-six are returned[607], while in all ten districts a fair amount of work was done. Thus in 1634 and 1635 apprenticeship was more insisted upon than other methods of poor relief and it seems to have been very generally well administered. We hear of some complaints but not many in proportion to the number of reports.

[604] Vol. 272.

[605] Vol. 289.

[606] Vol. 289, No. 48.

[607] Vol. 289, No. 20. The hundreds of Whitleigh, Huntspill, Puriton, North Petherton, Cannington and Andersfield.

We thus see that during the years 1630 to 1639 we have a large amount of information concerning the administration of the Poor Law. We find that a great improvement was effected in 1631. We also find that the area of administration continued to extend into the Northern counties after 1631: the difference is indicated by the fact that in 1638 it is exceptional to find a place without a poor rate, whereas in 1631 the Government spoke of the laws as being almost obsolete in many places. We see further that sometimes the later reports come from the same places as the earlier, and that then the administration continues to be reported as good. Lastly, in regard to apprentices we are told that the Privy Council made special efforts to enforce the law, and that all over the country there is evidence that it was enforced though occasionally without favourable results. There is thus reason to believe that the efforts made by the central government to enforce the law were at last successful, and that the period to which we owe the survival of our English system of poor relief is that of the personal government of Charles I.

But we have already noticed that not only is this period the critical time in the history of the poor relief that survived, but in one respect the poor relief of this period was unique. Many efforts were made to find work for the unemployed. Relief of this kind was so much a part of the general system of the time that we have already examined many instances in which it was administered.

We will first investigate a few more of the reports of 1631, and we shall find that the improvement effected in all parts of the administration of poor relief especially concerned the relief of the ablebodied; we will then examine a detailed report in order to see what light it throws on the interpretation of the general statements of other justices, and we will lastly try to find out if relief of this kind was confined to a few districts, or was administered all over the country, and also in what parts of the country there was the greatest need of employment.

[Sidenote: 7. The improvement effected in 1631 especially concerned the unemployed.]

To begin with cases in which improvement was reported in April 1631. From a large district of Hertfordshire we hear "we haue already raysed a stocke in some parishes, and are raysing stocks for the rest to sett all the poore on worke in this division[608]." In Essex, Richmond, Bedford and Beverley fresh taxes for this purpose had just been raised, and at Agbrigg they were still "setlinge such a course for raysinge of stocke to sett y^e people of able bodies on work[609]."

[608] For the Liberty of St Albans and the hundred of Cashio (excepting Rickmansworth, Watford and Sarratt), Vol. 188, 43.

[609] _Essex_, Vol. 188, 92. Poor in misery, because clothiers do not set them to work, but the justices "did cause" the "able men of parishes" to "raise stockes and meanes to sett their poore on worke."

_Richmond_, Vol. 189, 65. "We haue likewise given direccons for another assessem^t to be presently made and levyed for the raising of a summe in grosse for a stocke for the setting to worke suche as are able and binding and putting forth apprentices w^{ch} occasions haue hitherto beene supplyed forth of the com(m)on stocke of the towne chamber w^{th} the making and levying of w^{ch} assessement the overseers are now in hande."

_Bedford_, Vol. 189, 27, I.

_Beverley_, Vol. 189, 8, X. Stocks were raised for keeping the poor to work "(viz^t) in St Maryes parish six poundes, in St Martin's parish sewven poundes, and in St Nicholas parish six pounde, besides the stocks they form(er)ly had." The poor were employed in spinning hemp.

_Agbrigg_, Vol. 189, 55. The justices sat at Wakefield, yesterday, for this purpose. The letter is dated April 29, 1631.

At Winchester the same thing is implied: the stock has been put in a clothier's hands, so that now the poor do not want work[610]. Twenty-eight reports relating not only to measures for corn, but also for the poor were sent in between April 21st and April 30th 1631. In seventeen of these the poor were set to work, and in many cases we can see that the measures have been taken since the receipt of the Book of Orders of January 1631/2[611].

[610] Vol. 188, 101. Mayor of Winchester, etc., reports to Sheriff of Hants, "First that wee haue raised and provided a stock of money and putt it into a clothiers hands to sett the poore people on worke that are able to worke, and now they doe not want worke."

[611] _State Papers_, Vol. 189. We have already referred to the cases of Whittlesford, etc. no. 75, Agbrigg no. 55, Braughing no. 80, Edwinstree and Odsey no. 73, Essex no. 92, Richmond no. 65, Bedford no. 27, and Beverley no. 8, X. Besides these, work was provided in Shepway (6), Doncaster (8, III.), Mansbridge, Buddlesgate and Soke, Hants. (11), Co. Nottingham (12), Bramber (16), Clackclose, etc. Norfolk (44), Borough of Buckingham (60), Alton, Hants. (66), the hundred of Hertford (79), and Badbury (83). All these places sent reports between April 21st, and 30th, 1631.

In the answers sent in May we have the same kind of information. In Brixton and Wallington we have a report similar to that from Hertfordshire; "stockes of mony," we are told, "are raised in moste of the parishes w^{th}in the said hundrede and burrow and the reste not yet raised are w^{th} as much expedicon as may bee to bee raised for buyinge of flax, hempe and other materialls to set the poore to worke[612]." From Arundel there is a like account, "we haue caused the taxations for the releefe of the poor to be raised in euery parish in this time of scarsitye, and haue likewise caused stocks of mony to be raised in euery parish to buy materialls to sett the poor a warke, and we haue caused the Statute of Laborors to be inquired after and to be putt in execution[613]."

[612] Vol. 190, No. 66.

[613] Vol. 191, No. 45.

We can thus see that in 1631 the justices were busy raising stocks to provide work for the poor, and that in seventeen documents, or more than half of the reports of the last ten days of April 1631, we are informed that measures had been taken with this object.

[Sidenote: 8. The detailed report from Bassetlaw throws light upon the more general statements of the justices.]

We will now examine a more detailed report relating to sixty parishes of Bassetlaw in County Nottingham and sent in during March 1636/7[614]. In most cases information is given under four headings, first we are told how many of the impotent poor are relieved, secondly the amount of the town stock, thirdly how many rogues have been punished, and lastly how many apprentices have been bound. This document is important because it seems to indicate the number of parochial officials who provided work for the unemployed in the district of Bassetlaw. This is not directly stated in the report, but the overseers return the amount of the town stock of their parish whenever a town stock existed. From the method in which the return is made it seems that this town stock was always used for finding employment for the able-bodied poor[615]. Other methods of dealing with those out of work are also noted, so that it appears that in forty-five out of sixty parishes the parochial authorities provided employment for those poor who could work. The amount of the stock was often quite small; in one case only sixteen shillings, but it is very possible that in this instance the parish also was small; in another place the stock consisted of a sum of about thirty pounds, and the average amount was about three pounds. This document from Bassetlaw only states in detail what many of the other reports imply, but the detail is much more convincing, and it is confirmed by the overseers' accounts from Barnet and Elstree which we have already examined[616]. It is perhaps worth while to notice that as early as 1623 the justices wrote from Bassetlaw that work for the poor was wanting, and they even then ordered that the labourers should be set to work by the town's stock and the impotent relieved by the public contribution[617].

[614] Vol. 349, No. 86.

[615] The supposition that the town stock was used in Bassetlaw for employing the poor seems almost certain for the following reasons:

(1) In the earlier entries this is often directly stated to be the case. Thus we are told at Laneham that the "towne stocke" was used to buy hemp "to sett such poore on worke as wante."

(2) When a town stock is reported not to exist other methods of employing the poor are sometimes mentioned as a reason for the absence of such a stock, and thus it is implied that a town stock when it existed was used for this purpose. Thus for example at Grove they have "no towne stock in regard, theire poore are otherwise sett on worke;" at Egmonton "Towne stock they haue none because they imploy theire poore in other worke as they wante;" while at Laxton cum Morehouse there was no stock because those who wanted work were otherwise employed "by the towne."

(3) There is an earlier report from Bassetlaw sent in on July 29th, 1636. This report relates to fewer places, but in some respects is fuller. In eleven cases where only the amount of the stock is noted in 1637, the fact that it was employed to provide work is directly stated in 1636. Thus for example the following entries occur:

Askham. "Five marks stocke to sett the poore on worke." (20 marks 1637.)

Kirton. "Tenn pounds in Towne stocke wherew^{th} the poore are sett on worke and two new howses built for them."

Clarebrough (Clarborough). "They have iii^{li} vi^s viii^d towarde releiueing the poore and setting the(m) on worke."

Misterton cu(m) Stockw^{th} (Stockwith). "That their Towne stocke is Tenn pounds towards setting their poore on worke and releiveing them."

East Markham. "And that they haue 5^{li} in stocke to sett the poore on worke." (£7 in 1637.)

Bole. "5^{li} Towne stocke w^{ch} is imployed to sett poore on worke."

Warsopp (Warsop). "They haue in Towne stocke to sett their poore on worke xi^{li} iiij^s." (£11 in 1637.)

Cuckney. "They have tenn pounds Towne stocke to sett their poore on worke." (£7 in 1637.)

Carberton (Carburton). "They haue in Stocke to maintain their poore in worke fifty shillings." (40_s._ in 1637.)

Mattersey. "They haue 5^{li} towne stocke to sett their poore on worke." (£10 in 1637.)

Eakring. "Tenn pounds in Towne stocke w^{ch} is putt out for vse of the poore. And the 7^{th} of June the(y) (the overseers) certifie that they haue raysed xx^s stocke to sett poore on worke and giue weekely allowance to six poore people," besides 40^s. more for placing apprentices.

In these eleven cases therefore the town stock was certainly used for employing the poor. In four other instances, however, a general statement is made as to the use of the stock which perhaps indicates that the whole of the stock was not always employed entirely for one purpose. Thus for example at Eaton £2. 6_s._ 8_d._ was "in stocke for such poore as should neede." However in no case do these statements contradict the supposition that the town stock in this district was partially used for finding employment for the poor, and the direct statement of the 1636 report in these eleven cases is strong evidence that in the remaining nine places the stock was used in the same fashion.

[616] See _supra_, p. 182.

[617] _D. S. P._, James I., Vol. 140, 10. I.

[Sidenote: 9. Local variations in the provision for the unemployed.]

[Sidenote: _a._ Not so extensive in the parts North of the Humber and in the extreme West.]

We have now to try to find out if it was only in a few counties that work was found for the unemployed, or if it was all over England. We have already noted that in the counties north of the Humber, and in the three western counties of Devonshire, Cornwall, and Wiltshire the poor law was apparently less well administered than in other parts of the country. In these counties with the exception of Yorkshire therefore there are few instances in which stocks are found for providing work for the unemployed. We hear however that in Ashton-under-Line there existed a "small stocke of money which is disposed on for the setting of poore to worke[618]". Moreover, in two Yorkshire reports of 1635 it is stated that the justices have been "verie carefull to raise stockes for setting ou^r poore on worke[619]." There are other Yorkshire returns containing information of the same kind, but still the plan of finding work for the unemployed of the North seems to be comparatively unusual.[620]

[618] _D. S. P._, Chas. I., Vol. 395, 106. In the same report it is stated that Oldham could not afford to raise a stock.

[619] _Ib._, Vol. 293, 122 and 129. The quotation is from a report from Ryedale signed by Lord Fairfax; the other document, in which almost exactly the same words occur is from Buckrose in the East Riding.